State and federal agencies mandate trash cleanup in Baltimore

This week the US Environmental Protection Agency gave final approval to the state's mandate that Baltimore City and Baltimore County clean up trash that makes its way to the Baltimore Harbor. The Harbor (officially the Middle and Northwest Branches of the Patapsco River, including Jones Falls and Gwynns Falls) was declared impaired by trash under the Clean Water Act in 2008, and local jurisdictions are now on the hook to remove nearly 50,000 pounds of trash from the watershed annually. They'll have five years to ramp up to that level before the plan will be reviewed, and potentially face financial penalties if they can't comply.

Both the City and County have long recognized the problem of trash pollution, and the environmental and public costs of it. In anticipation of this mandate, both jurisdictions have recently stepped up street sweeping dramatically. They are also exploring ways to change public behavior to prevent litter in the first place, from encouraging sustainable practices in homes and businesses, to increased enforcement, to legislation to control commonly littered items.

As Halle VanDerGaag, Blue Water Baltimore executive director (and Trash Free Maryland board member) told CBS Baltimore, "We've all been talking about cleaning up trash, but this really takes it from a voluntary effort to a mandatory one."

Trash Free Maryland submitted comments when the regulations were drafted. Known as a Total Maximum Daily Load, these regulations stipulate cleanup requirements for numerous water pollutants. In this area, the most famous TMDL is an umbrella set of regulations for the Chesapeake Bay, to reduce the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. Normally TMDLs set a limit for the maximum amount of the pollutant allowable in the water (hence the name Total Maximum Daily Load). Trash is relatively new in the regulatory world, with the Harbor TMDL just the third in the country (the Los Angeles River and Anacostia River being the other two).

Unlike the Bay TMDL, the Harbor and Anacostia TMDLs both scrap the idea of a maximum load and instead require removal of a specified amount of trash, based on estimates of the amount of trash polluting the water. While we're happy to have something to mandate cleanup, the removal approach is troubling for a few reasons:

- It assumes the baseline estimates are accurate.
- It doesn't factor in population growth, or a population that generates more trash over time.
- It incentivizes cleanup and engineered physical structures, which cost more than prevention.
- It disincentives prevention--calculating the weight of trash pollution prevented by, for example, an outreach campaign is at best an estimate.
- Measuring success is much easier for downstream jurisdictions (where capture is easier) than upstream ones (where trash is more dispersed).

The Harbor TMDL document does include an appendix to guide jurisdictions in developing their plans to meet the requirements, including suggestions for how to incorporate source reduction and other prevention activities. This appendix is important, and we're glad the Maryland Department of Environment heard our and our partners' comments.

After all, as the authors say on page 44, "the best way to reduce trash going into the Harbor is to persuade residents not to throw it onto streets and sidewalks in the first place."

Baltimore: What Now?

Last night the Baltimore City Council voted down a proposal to apply a 10-cent surcharge on disposable plastic and paper shopping bags. The measure, sponsored by Councilman Brandon Scott, had the potential to significantly reduce litter in Baltimore neighborhoods by prompting most residents to bring reusable bags with them when shopping.

The Council voted 6-9 against the proposal. Councilmembers Scott, Jim Kraft, Mary Pat Clarke, Nick Mosby, Bill Henry, and Bill Cole voted in favor. Opponents, led by Council President Jack Young, asserted that the fee would be a burden on small businesses and low-income residents, in spite of research in nearby Washington, DC, that demonstrates the opposite effect.

As seen in DC and Montgomery County, a small fee on bags is a powerful motivator for people to switch from disposable to reusable. When we have less disposable plastic in the community, we have less disposable plastic as litter. Bags are a major component of trash polluting our neighborhoods and waterways. They may not always be visible in the water because they don't float, but we've all seen them in trees, and along stream banks and roads. They get stuck in storm drains and can cause flooding. They are hard to recycle because they tangle in machinery. Cleaning up this mess costs money -- and yet they are so easy to replace with a durable bag.

One common claim by opponents was that Baltimore lacked a comprehensive plan to address trash pollution. This claim is not entirely true. Over the past several years, Trash Free Maryland, Blue Water Baltimore, and our partners have worked with several council offices, the Office of Sustainability, the Department of Public Works, and the Sustainability Commission to identify priority challenges and best-practice solutions. Together, these efforts approach the problem from multiple angles and have the potential to dramatically improve the cleanliness of our neighborhoods and waterways:

- The Healthy Harbor Initiative and Blue Water Baltimore created a Trash Working Group to bring city agencies and nonprofit environmental and community organizations together to identify specific litter hotspots and develop collaborative campaigns to tackle neighborhood litter. Corner cans were recently installed in targeted neighborhoods, along with literature educating residents and businesses about trash collection days.

- Trash Free Maryland and its members have been working with council offices to develop and advocate for strong and effective policies to change behavior around littering. At the recommendation of the Office of Sustainability and other partners, we prioritized a bag bill over a polystyrene foam ban in order to maximize public education opportunities and make both programs more successful.

- Trash Free Maryland, Blue Water Baltimore, and the Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper have collaborated with the Maryland Department of the Environment to develop a regulatory device to remove trash from the Baltimore Harbor and its feeder tributaries. This device, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), encourages source-reduction and litter prevention programs as less expensive solutions to structural capture and removal tools, which increase in installation and maintenance costs over time without actually affecting public behavior.

We're disappointed that the City Council was misled by bad information and failed to take a proactive step toward a cleaner city. All three of these activities will continue in the City -- and all over the state of Maryland -- as our population grows, our use of disposable products increases, and the risk of litter and trash pollution mounts. Meanwhile more and more citizens are organizing and asking for change. Whether the City passes its own laws, or becomes subject to those approved in Annapolis, source-reduction and litter-pollution policies are coming.

Baltimore Bag Law: Clearing up some misconceptions

Gwynns Falls / Photo: Blue Water Baltimore

The Baltimore City Council may be voting on the 10-cent disposable bag surcharge this afternoon. Several letters from residents have run in the Baltimore Sun, and some of them reflect common misunderstandings.

Why a fee, not a ban?

Both approaches tackle bag litter by significantly reducing the number of disposable bags taken from stores. A fee allows people to decide: do I want to buy bags 10 cents at a time, or spend a dollar for one I can reuse for years?

Two advantages to the fee come from the fact that some people will continue to choose to use disposable bags. These funds provide both a safety net for disadvantaged residents, allowing the City to buy reusable bags and distribute them for free to those who need them, and the funds are available for broader environmental restoration efforts, expanding the impact of the law to more environmental needs.

Funds from the surcharge will also be available to pay for an education campaign to tell people about the law and the hazards of litter. Without these funds, such a campaign will require funds from another area in the City's budget.

A ban would only address the bags themselves, and the City would have to figure out ways to get reusable bags into the hands of people who can't afford them. Also, most bans around the nation still don't capture every disposable bag, because they don't apply at all stores.

How do we know the money will be used for these purposes?

The bill has been amended to clarify that the revenues will go to a sustainability fund. This dedicated fund requires a charter amendment, which will be on the ballot in November. Residents can also be confident that advocates will be aggressive in their oversight of this fund--we want this program not just to pass, but to work.

Why plastic bags? I see lots of other litter too.

We can educate people about the problems of litter generally, but to create significant behavior change, we have to target specific behaviors. Each component of litter is associated with different specific behaviors, so each component requires a specific approach. With bags, we can significantly reduce litter by encouraging reusable bag use. With beverage containers, we reduce littering and increase cleanup by making the bottles and cans worth something--a refundable deposit has been proven for decades to work. For cigarette butts, we need disposal devices that people don't fear will catch fire--and we need people to realize those filters are not biodegradable. The list goes on. Addressing disposable bags is just one piece of the puzzle.

Isn't this a tax on the poor?

Everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, can make the choice about whether to bring a reusable bag or not. The bag law will only affect your shopping bill if you choose to use disposable bags. Period.

Won't it hurt small businesses?

In DC and Montgomery County, no business has reported declining sales because of bag laws. Instead, most report significant savings because they don't have to buy as many bags. Only 8% of businesses surveyed in DC in 2012 oppose the bag law--and their reasons are because they feel their customers misunderstand it.

Baltimore, we can do this. We can change the perception that the city is dirty. We can get bags out of the trees, out of the storm drains, and out of our waterways. Please call your council member today and ask them to vote YES on Bill #13-0241.

Baltimore polystyrene ban passes out of committee

The Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee of the Baltimore City Council voted unanimously today in favor of a measure that would ban disposable food-service foam containers from restaurants and city facilities. The ban would extend to cups, plates, dishes, bowls, trays, clamshell containers, and similar items used for transporting prepared foods. The proposal also prohibits City funds from being used to purchase these materials. Violating the ordinance would result in a $200 fine.

Foam polystyrene (often called by the brand name Styrofoam) comprises a third of the litter in the Harris Creek watershed, explained Dr. Ray Bahr, a local activist. This litter winds up in the Baltimore Harbor, which is plagued by floating debris.

The bill, #12-0104, was introduced by Councilmember Jim Kraft (D-District 1) last July. It received favorable reports from numerous City agencies, and the committee heard public testimony today. Councilmembers Robert Curran (District 3), Bill Henry (District 4), Warren Branch (District 13), and Mary Pat Clarke (District 14) joined Kraft in voting favorably.

The bill now moves to the full 15-member Council, with a vote expected during Monday's session. Ten councilmembers joined Kraft as cosponsors on the legislation.

Baltimore considers a polystyrene ban

The Baltimore City Council is currently debating a measure that would ban polystyrene food containers in food service establishments. The ban would be a first among large East Coast cities, although similar proposals are being debated in New York and Boston. Many large West Coast cities, including Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, have already banned polystyrene. This is an exciting opportunity for Baltimore to lead the East Coast on an important environmental issue.

What is polystyrene? Many people know polystyrene foam by the trademarked name Styrofoam, but Styrofoam is just one brand name for one type of polystyrene. There are many other brands and types, including both foams and regular plastics. For example, polystyrene is commonly used in disposable plastic forks and spoons, plastic plates and cups, straws, and takeout containers. Anything with the recycling number 6 is polystyrene; it’s one of the most commonly used materials for disposable foodware.

What’s the problem? Polystyrene is also one of the most common components of litter pollution. A 2008 study found that fully 25% of trash in the Jones Falls in Baltimore was polystyrene foam containers. In large, open waterways, the composition is often higher: head down to Baltimore’s Inner Harbor and you’re guaranteed to see bits and pieces of foam cups, plastic forks, and takeout containers bobbing along the waterfront.

This litter pollution makes Baltimore look dirty, invites crime, and harms wildlife. Polystyrene never biodegrades, but breaks down into small pieces which are consumed by marine life. Birds, turtles, and marine mammals can die from ingesting large amounts of this plastic. There are also emerging concerns that eating food out of polystyrene may be harmful to human health.

Unfortunately, polystyrene is very difficult and not economical to recycle. That’s why many cities are using bans to eliminate polystyrene.

Littered polystyrene containers, like this one in the Inner Harbor, are dangerous to wildlife. 
(Photo: Baltimore Harborkeeper)

Will it cost more? You’ll often hear opponents of the ban talk about how it’s going to raise costs for consumers. In reality, the increased cost will only add a few cents to the price of a meal. What opponents don’t mention is the enormous cost that we are already paying to pick up polystyrene trash. Baltimore City alone spends $10 million every year on litter cleanup (and even so, there’s still tons of trash around the city!) The Baltimore Waterfront Partnership, an alliance of businesses in the Inner Harbor, spends an additional $300,000 in private funds just to clean litter in the harbor. The polystyrene industry is getting a pretty good deal by making us clean up their trash, and they would like us to continue footing the bill.

What’s more, Baltimore Harbor was recently declared to be “impaired” by trash under the Clean Water Act. That means Baltimore is legally required to reduce the amount of trash in the water. If we don’t, we will have to pay hefty fines to the federal government. So, we’re all paying one way or another -- either a few cents upfront for alternative containers, or after the fact, to clean up cheap polystyrene containers in our streets and streams. Why not cut the problem off at the source? As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Will it work? Nearly 50 cities around the US have successfully banned polystyrene food containers, with positive results. Polystyrene bans are spurring demand, innovation, and competition in other materials, which will ultimately reduce the cost of alternatives. Eventually, we anticipate that most food service containers will be recyclable or compostable, further reducing the cost for Baltimore to haul them away as garbage.

Some of you may remember when McDonalds made the big jump from polystyrene foam hamburger boxes to the paper wrappers they have today. When the change was first proposed, there was a tremendous uproar. The public couldn’t imagine buying hamburgers wrapped in paper. But of course, it wasn’t a big deal -- now we all expect to get sandwiches wrapped in paper, and hamburger-wrapper litter has declined dramatically. Let’s hope that Baltimore council members have the vision and courage to do the same for the rest of our polystyrene food containers!

Call your councilmember, and Council President Jack Young, today. Find their phone numbers here.

-by Bradley Kennedy

What could a bottle bill do for Maryland?

Today Delegate Maggie McIntosh (chair of the Environmental Matters Committee) will announce that she is introducing a bottle bill for Maryland to the General Assembly. For those of us in the trash world, this is a very big deal. But it's a big deal for all Marylanders, too!

A bottle bill, or container deposit, applies a refundable charge to every plastic, glass, and aluminum beverage container sold in the state (generally, milk products are excepted). Yes, your six-pack of beer will cost a few cents more at the store. But when you finish the beverage, you return the empty bottles to a recycling facility, and get that money back! There is no net cost to you.

There is a tremendous cost to uncontrolled trash, though. Both the Anacostia River and Baltimore Harbor are deemed "impaired" by trash under the Clean Water Act. Montgomery, Prince George's, and Baltimore Counties, as well as Baltimore City, are under federal mandate to clean up the mess. Soon, all counties with stormwater permits will also have to address trash. Many of those solutions cost money.

Virtually all of those obligations could be met with this one law.

Beverage containers generally make up at least half of the trash in the Nash Run Trash Trap, maintained by the Anacostia Watershed Society. See this photo from last May, where the trash was sorted by category:

A refundable deposit on those containers will reduce that load to almost zero. People are significantly less inclined to litter when they know the container has value. Those that do "get loose" into the world are quickly picked up by people who cash it in--whether it's youth groups, homeless individuals, or entrepreneurs.

Maryland currently recycles just 22% of these containers. Michigan, which has a 10-cent deposit, recycles 90%!

Container deposits create new jobs in the recycling sector, as people are needed to collect and sort the returned containers.

This is a very exciting proposal for Maryland, and we are delighted to be working with our friends at the Recycle for Real campaign and Chairwoman McIntosh on this opportunity.